Animal rationality through higher-order reasons

Abstract Melis and Monsó have recently argued that non-human animals are capable of reflectively responding to normative reasons. They argue for this via animals’ capacity to respond to undermining epistemic defeaters. Although we are ultimately sympathetic to this idea, the present article develops a principled methodological challenge to the empirical evidence they cite to corroborate their claims. What we call the Acquisition Problem shows that the studies that Melis and Monsó cite cannot provide differential support for the hypothesis that animals reflectively respond to reasons. We close by suggesting two possible ways forward that evade our challenge, while remaining true to the spirit of Melis and Monsó’s proposal. First, future studies could aim to model testimony of undermining defeaters in social learning. Second, and even more promisingly, we should focus on the broader phenomenon that Melis and Monsó’s proposal points towards, namely, animals’ responsiveness to higher-order reasons.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Philosophical Quarterly
Published
2026-01-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqag008
Primary Topic
Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Animal rationality through higher-order reasons

Zsófia Virányi, Martin Walter Niederl
The Philosophical Quarterly
Philosophical Ethics and Theory
article

Animal rationality through higher-order reasons

Zsófia Virányi, Martin Walter Niederl
article en

Abstract

Abstract Melis and Monsó have recently argued that non-human animals are capable of reflectively responding to normative reasons. They argue for this via animals’ capacity to respond to undermining epistemic defeaters. Although we are ultimately sympathetic to this idea, the present article develops a principled methodological challenge to the empirical evidence they cite to corroborate their claims. What we call the Acquisition Problem shows that the studies that Melis and Monsó cite cannot provide differential support for the hypothesis that animals reflectively respond to reasons. We close by suggesting two possible ways forward that evade our challenge, while remaining true to the spirit of Melis and Monsó’s proposal. First, future studies could aim to model testimony of undermining defeaters in social learning. Second, and even more promisingly, we should focus on the broader phenomenon that Melis and Monsó’s proposal points towards, namely, animals’ responsiveness to higher-order reasons.

The Philosophical QuarterlyVol. 76(2)
University of Chicago (US), Cambridge Cognition (United Kingdom) (GB), Medical University of Vienna (AT)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 56%
Philosophical Ethics and Theory
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Animal rationality through higher-order reasons — Zsófia Virányi, Martin Walter Niederl · The Philosophical Quarterly (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS